Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 33 references

AI-generated images can be detected with high accuracy, but identifying the exact model remains difficult.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 17:26 UTC pith:A7R72KRS

load-bearing objection This competition report introduces a new mixed real/synthetic dataset and shows binary detection works better than model attribution, but the abstract gives too few details to judge if the gap is real or benchmark-specific. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.20787 v3 pith:A7R72KRS submitted 2026-05-20 cs.CV

Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Image Detection

Rajarshi Roy , Nasrin Imanpour , Ashhar Aziz , Shashwat Bajpai , Gurpreet Singh , Shwetangshu Biswas , Kapil Wanaskar , Parth Patwa
show 11 more authors
Subhankar Ghosh Shreyas Dixit Nilesh Ranjan Pal Vipula Rawte Ritvik Garimella Amitava Das Amit Sheth Vasu Sharma Aishwarya Naresh Reganti Vinija Jain Aman Chadha
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords AI image detectiongenerative model attributionbinary classificationCounter Turing Testsynthetic image forensicsMS COCOAIcomputer vision competition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents results from the Counter Turing Test competition on detecting AI-generated images. Teams were tasked with both distinguishing synthetic images from real ones and attributing them to one of five specific generative models using a dataset of 96,000 images. Binary detection achieved F1-scores over 0.83 across various methods like CNNs and transformers, while model identification topped out at 0.4986 F1. This matters because effective detection could help combat misinformation, though limited attribution reduces the ability to trace specific sources.

Core claim

In the Defactify 4.0 workshop competition, participants demonstrated that binary classification between AI-generated and real images is achievable with F1-scores exceeding 0.83 using diverse strategies including convolutional neural networks, vision transformers, and frequency analysis on the MS COCOAI dataset. However, the more granular task of identifying which of the five state-of-the-art models generated a given synthetic image proved substantially harder, with the best F1-score reaching only 0.4986. These outcomes underscore the current capabilities and limitations in forensic analysis of generative AI outputs.

What carries the argument

The two-task evaluation on the MS COCOAI benchmark, separating overall synthetic detection from specific model attribution.

Load-bearing premise

The MS COCOAI dataset and the submitted detection methods capture representative challenges of real-world AI image detection and attribution.

What would settle it

Demonstration of a detector that achieves model identification F1-scores substantially above 0.5 on the same or similar benchmark, or a new generator that drops binary F1 below 0.83.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Current methods suffice for basic synthetic content flagging but require advancement for precise source tracing.
  • Frequency-based and multimodal approaches offer complementary strengths to neural network methods in detection tasks.
  • Real-time mechanisms could build on the high-performing binary classifiers.
  • Adversarial robustness testing is essential given the performance gap in model identification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future generators outside the five tested may evade even the binary detectors trained here.
  • Integration with metadata or watermarking could compensate for weak attribution performance.
  • Expanding the dataset to more models would likely widen the observed performance gap further.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports findings from the Defactify 4.0 workshop's Counter Turing Test (CT2) competition on AI-generated image detection. It introduces the MS COCOAI dataset (96,000 real and synthetic images from five generative models plus MS COCO reals) and describes two tasks: binary AI-vs-real classification and specific model identification. Participants used CNNs, ViTs, frequency analysis, contrastive learning, and multimodal methods. The central empirical claim is that binary detection reaches F1 > 0.83 while model identification reaches only 0.4986.

Significance. If the reported performance gap is robust to dataset artifacts and participant coverage, the results provide a useful empirical benchmark showing that current detectors can separate synthetic from real images but struggle to attribute images to particular generators. This could motivate targeted work on model fingerprinting and adversarial robustness.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: aggregate F1 scores (>0.83 binary, 0.4986 model ID) are stated without error bars, baseline comparisons, number of submissions, or descriptions of the top methods and their training details, so the post-hoc selection of peak scores cannot be verified and the claimed gap cannot be assessed for statistical reliability.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript supplies no information on prompt overlap between train and test splits, generation hyperparameters, fixed seeds, or post-processing steps in the MS COCOAI dataset, leaving open the possibility that binary accuracy is inflated by shared cues while model-ID performance remains near chance.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the observed gap reflects inherent difficulty rather than benchmark-specific artifacts rests on the untested assumptions that the five generators produce sufficiently distinct fingerprints on the held-out test set and that the submitted methods exhaust the space of viable detectors; neither assumption is supported by any analysis in the provided text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional context on the competition results and dataset construction. We address each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: aggregate F1 scores (>0.83 binary, 0.4986 model ID) are stated without error bars, baseline comparisons, number of submissions, or descriptions of the top methods and their training details, so the post-hoc selection of peak scores cannot be verified and the claimed gap cannot be assessed for statistical reliability.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is too concise. In the revised version we will report the total number of submissions received, briefly characterize the top three methods per task (including architecture family and whether they used frequency or multimodal cues), and include simple baseline results such as a ResNet-50 trained from scratch. Error bars cannot be added because the competition protocol collected only a single submission per team; we will explicitly note this limitation and the post-hoc nature of the reported peaks. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript supplies no information on prompt overlap between train and test splits, generation hyperparameters, fixed seeds, or post-processing steps in the MS COCOAI dataset, leaving open the possibility that binary accuracy is inflated by shared cues while model-ID performance remains near chance.

    Authors: The MS COCOAI dataset was built by sampling prompts exclusively from the MS COCO validation set and randomly partitioning the resulting images into train/test splits with no prompt overlap. Each generator used its publicly released default settings without fixed random seeds, and images were saved in their native format with no additional post-processing. We will insert a short paragraph describing these construction choices in the revised manuscript so that readers can evaluate the risk of shared cues. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the observed gap reflects inherent difficulty rather than benchmark-specific artifacts rests on the untested assumptions that the five generators produce sufficiently distinct fingerprints on the held-out test set and that the submitted methods exhaust the space of viable detectors; neither assumption is supported by any analysis in the provided text.

    Authors: The abstract reports an empirical observation from the submitted entries rather than asserting that the gap is caused by inherent difficulty. We will rephrase the final sentence to remove any implication of inherent difficulty and instead state that, among the approaches submitted to the competition, binary detection was substantially easier than model attribution. No additional analysis of fingerprint distinctness across the five generators was performed; such an analysis would require experiments outside the scope of the original competition. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical competition results with no derivation or fitting

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from the Defactify 4.0 workshop competition on the MS COCOAI dataset. Binary detection and model identification F1 scores are direct aggregates of participant submissions evaluated on held-out test images. No equations, parameter fitting, uniqueness theorems, or self-citation chains appear in the abstract or described structure. The central claims are observational measurements rather than derived predictions, satisfying the self-contained empirical criterion with no reduction to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work is an empirical competition summary.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5882 in / 1016 out tokens · 31195 ms · 2026-06-30T17:26:37.368678+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The rapid advancements in generative AI technologies, such as Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and Midjourney, have significantly transformed the creation of synthetic visual content. While these models enable innovation across industries, they also pose serious challenges, including misinformation, disinformation, and biased content generation. The increasing realism of AI-generated images makes their detection a pressing concern for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders. In this paper, we present the findings of the Defactify 4.0 workshop, which introduced the Counter Turing Test (CT2) for AI-Generated Image Detection. The competition consisted of two key tasks: (1) binary classification of images as either AI-generated or real and (2) identification of the specific generative model responsible for an AI-generated image. To support both tasks, we employed the MS COCOAI dataset, a benchmark of 96000 real and synthetic images generated by five state-of-the-art models alongside real images from MS COCO. Participants employed diverse detection strategies, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViTs), frequency-based analysis, contrastive learning, and multimodal techniques. The results demonstrated that while AI-generated images can be detected with high accuracy (F1-score > 0.83), identifying the exact model used remains significantly more challenging (highest F1-score: 0.4986). These findings highlight the need for improved model fingerprinting, adversarial robustness, and real-time detection mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20787 by Aishwarya Naresh Reganti, Aman Chadha, Amitava Das, Amit Sheth, Ashhar Aziz, Gurpreet Singh, Kapil Wanaskar, Nasrin Imanpour, Nilesh Ranjan Pal, Parth Patwa, Rajarshi Roy, Ritvik Garimella, Shashwat Bajpai, Shreyas Dixit, Shwetangshu Biswas, Subhankar Ghosh, Vasu Sharma, Vinija Jain, Vipula Rawte.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Baseline workflow. The input image is first transformed into its frequency domain represen￾tation and then passed through a ResNet-50 CNN classifier to predict whether it is real or fake. 4. Participating Systems The challenge utilized the MS COCOAI dataset, an extension of the MS COCO dataset, comprising 50,000 images generated by models such as DALL-E 3, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. Participants aim… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Baseline workflow. The input image is first transformed into its frequency domain represen￾tation and then passed through a ResNet-50 CNN classifier to predict whether it is real or fake. 4. Participating Systems The challenge utilized the MS COCOAI dataset, an extension of the MS COCO dataset, comprising 50,000 images generated by models such as DALL-E 3, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. Participants aim… view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models.Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    Robin Rombach, Patrick Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bjorn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models.Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation.Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation.Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    midjourney website

    Midjourney. "midjourney website" accessed july 30, 2024. https://www.midjourney.com/

    2024

  4. [4]

    fake pentagon explosion image spreads misinformation and briefly shakes stock market

    Associated Press. "fake pentagon explosion image spreads misinformation and briefly shakes stock market. " accessed july 22, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/ pentagon-explosion-misinformation-stock-market-ai-96f534c790872fde67012ee81b5ed6a4, 2023

    2024

  5. [5]

    deepfakes could be used to influence the 2020 election

    CNBC. "deepfakes could be used to influence the 2020 election. " accessed july 26, 2024. https: //www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/deepfakes-could-be-problem-for-the-2020-election.html, 2019

    2020

  6. [6]

    SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01952

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, TimBrooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, LongOuyang, Jun- tangZhuang, JoyceLee, YufeiGuo, WesamManassra, PrafullaDhariwal, CaseyChu, YunxinJiao, and Aditya Ramesh. Improving image generation with better captions. URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:264403242

  8. [8]

    A comprehensive dataset for human vs

    Rajarshi Roy, Nasrin Imanpour, Ashhar Aziz, Shashwat Bajpai, Gurpreet Singh, Shwetangshu Biswas, Kapil Wanaskar, Parth Patwa, Subhankar Ghosh, Shreyas Dixit, Nilesh Ranjan Pal, Vipula Rawte, Ritvik Garimella, Gaytri Jena, Vasu Sharma, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Aishwarya Naresh Reganti, and Amitava Das. A comprehensive dataset for human vs. ai generated im...

  9. [9]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00553

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Generative Adversarial Networks

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks, 2014. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1406.2661

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Dire for diffusion-generated image detection

    Zhendong Wang, Jianmin Bao, Wengang Zhou, Weilun Wang, Hezhen Hu, Hong Chen, and Houqiang Li. Dire for diffusion-generated image detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 22445–22455, October 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Aeroblade: Training-free detection of latent diffusion images using autoencoder reconstruction error, 2024

    Jonas Ricker, Denis Lukovnikov, and Asja Fischer. Aeroblade: Training-free detection of latent diffusion images using autoencoder reconstruction error, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401. 17879

    2024

  13. [13]

    Lare^2: Latent reconstruction error based method for diffusion-generated image detection

    Yunpeng Luo, Junlong Du, Ke Yan, and Shouhong Ding. Lare^2: Latent reconstruction error based method for diffusion-generated image detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17006–17015, June 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    DRCT: Diffusion reconstruction contrastive training towards universal detection of diffusion generated images

    Baoying Chen, Jishen Zeng, Jianquan Yang, and Rui Yang. DRCT: Diffusion reconstruction contrastive training towards universal detection of diffusion generated images. In Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors,Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Ma...

    2024

  15. [15]

    org/abs/2302.10174

    Utkarsh Ojha, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Towards universal fake image detectors that generalize across generative models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10174

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    RIGID: A training- free and model-agnostic framework for robust AI-generated image detection,

    Zhiyuan He, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. Rigid: A training-free and model-agnostic framework for robust ai-generated image detection, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20112

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    C2p-clip: Injecting category common prompt in clip to enhance generalization in deepfake detection, 2024

    Chuangchuang Tan, Renshuai Tao, Huan Liu, Guanghua Gu, Baoyuan Wu, Yao Zhao, and Yunchao Wei. C2p-clip: Injecting category common prompt in clip to enhance generalization in deepfake detection, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09647

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Generalizable synthetic image detection via language- guided contrastive learning, 2025

    Haiwei Wu, Jiantao Zhou, and Shile Zhang. Generalizable synthetic image detection via language- guided contrastive learning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13800

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Diffusion noise feature: Accurate and fast generated image detection, 2025

    Yichi Zhang and Xiaogang Xu. Diffusion noise feature: Accurate and fast generated image detection, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02625

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    A single simple patch is all you need for ai-generated image detection, 2024

    Jiaxuan Chen, Jieteng Yao, and Li Niu. A single simple patch is all you need for ai-generated image detection, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01123

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Learning on gradients: Generalized artifacts representation for gan-generated images detection

    Chuangchuang Tan, Yao Zhao, Shikui Wei, Guanghua Gu, and Yunchao Wei. Learning on gradients: Generalized artifacts representation for gan-generated images detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12105–12114, June 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08880 (2023) 2

    Mingjian Zhu, Hanting Chen, Mouxiao Huang, Wei Li, Hailin Hu, Jie Hu, and Yunhe Wang. Gendet: Towards good generalizations for ai-generated image detection, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2312.08880

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. InProceedings of the IEEE European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2014

    2014

  24. [24]

    Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Dustin Podell, Tim Dockhorn, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Alex Goodwin, Yannik Marek, and Robin Rombach. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03206

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Intriguing properties of synthetic images: From generative adversarial networks to diffusion models

    Riccardo Corvi, Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, Koki Nagano, and Luisa Verdoliva. Intriguing properties of synthetic images: From generative adversarial networks to diffusion models. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, pages 973–982, June 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  27. [27]

    Team nycu at defactify4: Robust detection and source identification of ai-generated images using cnn and clip-based models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10718, 2025

    Tsan-Tsung Yang, I-Wei Chen, Kuan-Ting Chen, Shang-Hsuan Chiang, and Wen-Chih Peng. Team nycu at defactify4: Robust detection and source identification of ai-generated images using cnn and clip-based models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10718, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Skdu at de-factify 4.0: Vision transformer with data augmentation for ai-generated image detection, 2025

    Shrikant Malviya, Neelanjan Bhowmik, and Stamos Katsigiannis. Skdu at de-factify 4.0: Vision transformer with data augmentation for ai-generated image detection, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.18812

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    AlBusayes and Munirah N

    Raghad K. AlBusayes and Munirah N. AlYahya. Beyond rgb: Exploring alternative color spaces for robust synthetic image detection. proceedings of DeFactify 4: Fourth workshop on Multimodal Fact-Checking and Hate Speech Detection

  30. [30]

    Analyzing the performance of cnns in binary and multiclass detection of ai-generated images at de-factify

    Héctor Penadés, Felix Escalona, and Miguel Cazorla. Analyzing the performance of cnns in binary and multiclass detection of ai-generated images at de-factify. proceedings of DeFactify 4: Fourth workshop on Multimodal Fact-Checking and Hate Speech Detection

  31. [31]

    Nau-qmul: Utilizing bert and clip for multi-modal ai-generated image detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.23863, 2026

    Xiaoyu Guo and Arkaitz Zubiaga. Nau-qmul: Utilizing bert and clip for multi-modal ai-generated image detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.23863, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Scalable framework for classifying ai-generated content across modalities, 2025

    Anh-Kiet Duong and Petra Gomez-Krämer. Scalable framework for classifying ai-generated content across modalities, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00375

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Attentionfusion: A multi-stream neural architecture for advanced ai image detection

    Nitiz Khanal. Attentionfusion: A multi-stream neural architecture for advanced ai image detection. proceedings of DeFactify 4: Fourth workshop on Multimodal Fact-Checking and Hate Speech Detection